|
 |
Persian or Farsi | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| patuco Diglot Moderator Gibraltar Joined 7015 days ago 3795 posts - 4268 votes  Speaks: Spanish, English* Personal Language Map | Message 81 of 99 13 October 2006 at 6:34am | IP Logged | ||
|
Wow, the "debate" is still going strong. I can't wait to see how this turns out ;-)
P.S. Please read the above with your tongue firmly in your cheek. Edited by patuco on 13 October 2006 at 6:37am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| rafaelrbp Pentaglot Senior Member Brazil Joined 7013 days ago 181 posts - 201 votes Speaks: Portuguese*, Spanish, English, French, Italian Studies: German | Message 82 of 99 13 October 2006 at 12:23pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I've never heard here in Brazil a discussion about Iran's official language. But from a dictionary I have here, they are considered synonyms: Farsi / Persian ( فارسی )
Should we make a poll, to see which is more common across the countries, or which one do you think is the correct one (or both, or none)? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6943 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 83 of 99 13 October 2006 at 12:57pm | IP Logged | ||
The problem is, you first need a poll to define what it means that a word is "correct" or not. I actually asked myself a different question, namely, why is this such an emotional issue. I've done the search Alijsh recommended (see my post on page 6), and the top link that came up in Google had roughly the same set of arguments he puts forward in this thread, but dated 1997. A link from inside that one, however, led to a confused, but emotional argument that by calling the language Farsi you actually show more respect towards Iranians. Go figure. One thing is clear, this has been an issue for some time now. I found the linguistic component of the arguments simply bogus. There is no grammatical rule for how to name a language, so all arguments based on analogy with the names of other languages in English are meaningless. The real issue, as far as I can tell, is the Iranian sentsitivity towards the colonial past and perhaps also towards the way the world is today. The following quote should make this clear: "Western propaganda want to hide anything which can show real face of Iranian nation, "Persian" can remind lots of glorious facts to western people (such as Persian Empire, the Great Cyrus, Persian Music, Persian Carpet, Persian Cat, Aryan race (except Americans) and so on). ... propaganda is the best way to make Americans agree with war and "Persian" is a disturbing word." And, once one starts down that path: "Whether being called Farsi or Persian, affects the past, present and future of the language." I presume any westerner here understands that there is no conspiracy of any sort behind how the language is called, especially given that the name appears to have been brought to the West by Iranians themselves, but things aren't always seen the same way elsewhere. Edited by frenkeld on 13 October 2006 at 1:19pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7156 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 84 of 99 13 October 2006 at 1:41pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I was thinking the same thing about this sensitivity about Persian vs. Iranian/Farsi.
I find that the quote's mention of "Western propaganda want to hide the real face of Iranian nation" [sic] to be indicative of insecurity and someone looking for a way to take a shot at American and Western European cultures. The quote also seems strange when we know that the official name of modern Iran is "Islamic Republic of Iran." That seems to be a pretty clear indication of the importance that Islam holds in the country's culture. What is the "real face" of the Iranian people mentioned by in the quote? Is the ancient past of the Achaemenid and Parthian Empires the true and sole representative of the real face of the Iranians? Do the legacies of these empires outweigh the contribution and influence of Islam? Edited by Chung on 13 October 2006 at 1:42pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6943 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 85 of 99 13 October 2006 at 2:11pm | IP Logged | ||
First of all, even if the "real face" were even today 100% Ancient Persia, the name of the language in English neither adds nor takes away anything from it. Besides, at least to me the word "Farsi" still rings of "Persia" in the way it sounds. As far as I understand, Islamic peoples can still relate to their pre-Islamic cultural roots. In Egypt they conducted DNA studies on modern Egyptians and were very pround of the links they claimed they could trace to the DNA studies on mummies and bones of ancient Egyptians. Iraq prides itself on being the cradle of civilization. Taliban did destroy ancient Buddhist statues, but this may not be typical. Edited by frenkeld on 14 October 2006 at 1:39pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7156 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 86 of 99 13 October 2006 at 2:30pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I agree wholeheartedly with you, especially when we consider we read that Iranians themselves use either "Persian" or "Farsi" in English.
My questions were more rhetorical than anything else and definitely not directed at you. I was thinking more about the quote which links the suppression of "Persian" as a way of denegrating modern Iranians. I think that it's a superficial link and anyone with a decent amount of education or worldly sense in the West would not make such simplistic conclusions that using "Farsi" over "Persian" is a way to ignore the acheivements of the Achaemenid and Parthian empires (among others). Your second point that citizens of modern Islamic countries should be proud of their pre-Islamic heritage is well taken and can be applied to other peoples whose modern culture has changed much from the past (e.g. Greece vs. Hellinic city states; Turkey vs. Asia Minor; Tunisia and Carthaginian Empire) Yet seeing that someone (presumably of Iranian origin), go on to imply that the real face of modern Iran is only in the pre-Islamic times points to selective memory and unwillingness to consider the influence of Islam from the 7th century AD onward. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| frenkeld Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6943 days ago 2042 posts - 2719 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: German | Message 87 of 99 13 October 2006 at 2:45pm | IP Logged | ||
You seem to imply that "Persia" ended with the arrival of Islam, but I am not sure this is true. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Farley Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 7092 days ago 681 posts - 739 votes 1 sounds Speaks: English*, GermanB1, French Studies: Spanish | Message 88 of 99 13 October 2006 at 2:57pm | IP Logged | ||
Wow what a debate!
The whole Iranian -- Farsi dispute appears to be a longstanding religious and political debate among the Iranians (or Persians), according to the link above, and not product of propaganda by the West. See the external links in the article. It seems the world changed from Persia to Iran back in the 1930's after Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, requested the name change. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
